|February 1st, 2008||#1|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
The Legal Situation in Canada
Liberal MP Keith Martin introduces bill to REPEAL SECTION 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
By Ezra Levant on January 31, 2008 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (29) | Trackback (1)
Keith Martin, a Liberal MP from Victoria, has introduced a private member's bill motion that is as groundbreaking as it is concise:
That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.
This is important for several reasons:
1. It's evidence that the "undernews" of the abusive, unaccountable conduct of the human rights commissions has caught the attention of at least one MP (we can assume Sen. Anne Cools is watching things, too).
2. That MP is a socially progressive Liberal (formerly a red Reformer), whose human rights credentials with the Left are impeccable. Not only has he made international human rights one of his causes in Parliament, but he has personally walked the talk, serving on various Doctors Without Borders missions.
3. If a progressive, young, hip Liberal MP from an urban seat feels comfortable proposing this motion, it is a sign that reforming these commissions is politically safe, even for a Conservative government still worried about being tagged as "anti-human rights". Martin is a political entrepreneur who goes for winning opportunities. He once ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance; he crossed the floor to the Liberals and was rewarded by them; he has a very friendly relationship with the press. The man picks political winners. That alone is a signal to other MPs that it's safe to stand and be counted on this fight.
4. By taking the initiative -- and beating other MPs, especially Conseratives, to the punch -- Martin will get some well-deserved credit for leadership. But he'll also make it easy for Conservative MPs, even the Conservative government itself, to "follow" his example, rather than to lead. In a way, Martin takes the political risk; by supporting him, the Tories are merely sensible and bi-partisan followers. He's the point-man.
5. The fact that Martin is a "visible minority" is irrelevant to most normal Canadians, but to the identity politics Left, it's a sign of his moral virtue, and thus makes him even more politically safe.
Congratulations to Martin for doing the right thing. But more than that: he has given the government itself a political opening to amend this awful law. The Conservatives should ensure that Motion M-446 goes to a vote, and every one of them -- as well as other MPs of good faith from every party that cares about freedom -- should join with Martin to make his amendment law.
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
Last edited by Alex Linder; February 1st, 2008 at 02:44 AM.
|February 11th, 2008||#2|
The Legal Situation in Canada
Ongoing battle in which all the major laws and issues are hashed out: Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship and Repression Continues: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=50775
- Section 13 of the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Act makes it a ‘discriminatory practice’ for ‘a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt …’ This includes areas like race, religion, sex and a long list of others. Who decides what is ‘likely’? The government agency.
- The Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission (CHRC) said in a trial of Ernst Zundel that the truth of any statement is no defence. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, Dean Steacy, has said: ‘Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value’.
- For violating Section 13 (or rather when the ‘Human Rights’ Commission has decreed that you have) you can be subject to a lifetime ban on your opinions registered with the Federal Court, a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years in jail.
- The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Active and Past cases: 46
Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37
Total complaints received by CHRC: 100
· NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.
· 100% of cases have Whites as respondents
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
· 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
· So far, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
· 35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
· 72.4% of complaints specifically identify "jews" as victims.
· 48.8% of all cases are by Richard Warman
Zealots too quick to complain to human rights commissions
By MICHAEL COREN
"I hate therefore I am."
The rallying cry of self-justifying liberals as they run to human rights commissions with complaints or to the courts with their latest hate crimes prosecution. The comfortable lords of the umbrage industry, demanding that if anyone offends them in any way they must pay and pay again.
We've heard a great deal recently about various Muslim activists taking journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn to assorted human rights commissions because the two men indulged in that age-old sin of informed and moderate free expression.
But it would be unfair to label Muslim radicals as the only or the loudest of censors.
Islamic zealots have merely taken a lesson from other groups, in particular those from the Jewish and gay communities. Numerous Jewish leaders somehow thought it a good idea to prosecute Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, thus transforming a fringe madman into an international icon. They have targeted numerous neo-Nazis and like-minded twits and vociferously supported the introduction of hate-crimes legislation.
Gay organizations joined in the censorship festival and have tried and often succeeded in silencing and fining teachers, printers, social workers, priests, ministers, nurses, journalists, politicians and any number of other people for expressing criticism of some aspect of homosexuality or homosexual life.
Just last week it was announced that there would be a second hate crimes prosecution of former native leader David Ahenakew, who in 2002 made repugnant remarks about Jews. He lost his Order of Canada, lost his position, lost his standing. Which is just as it should be. Ostracize and reject bigots and thugs.
This latest litigation comes about because an initial hate crimes conviction was overturned on appeal. So we waste even more public tax dollars and court time trying to convict Ahenakew again. Yet we already know he's a racist and a buffoon.
All that might be achieved by this nonsense is that people might begin to have sympathy for someone they increasingly perceive as a broken and beaten old man.
The courts should have nothing at all to do with one person's hate or dislike of another. It is simply none of their business. If someone assaults a person, prosecute him. If someone calls for a person to be assaulted, prosecute him, under the long-standing criminal code. If someone says nasty things about a person, ignore him.
Ahenakew's comments were genuinely ugly and ignorant, whereas Steyn was providing comment on geopolitics and Levant printing cartoons of international importance. The point, however, is that when the state is allowed to judge speech and decide whether it is acceptable, use is just as bad as abuse. In other words, the very process is as malicious as any verdict.
If there is any doubt, ask Catholic Insight magazine. A gay activist was so hurt by the monthly journal's comments about homosexuality that he read numerous editions of the magazine, assembled a whole collection and sent them to a human rights commission.
GAYS AND CATHOLICS
Common sense cries out to be heard! The publication is Catholic and therefore reflects Catholic teaching concerning sexuality. Thus it may not be pleasant reading for gay people.
The solution is simple. If you're gay, don't read Catholic Insight. Even hate Catholic Insight if you want. But don't try to silence Catholic Insight.
We're liked and disliked, loved or hated. Only the truly neurotic think it could ever be otherwise. Only the truly intolerant would have the state try to enforce it.
Last edited by Alex Linder; February 12th, 2008 at 04:24 AM.
|February 11th, 2008||#3|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on expression, and it therefore passed constitutional muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity — including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States — was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination.
Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of expression often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada.
In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian customs frequently target books with homosexual content. Police raids searching for obscene materials have disproportionately targeted gay organizations and bookstores.
Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
A great deal more censorship in Canada seems inevitable. For example, British Columbia's extremely broad hate-speech law prohibits the publication of any statement that "indicates" discrimination or that is "likely" to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt. The Canadian thought police are on the march. Hopefully, it is not too late to stop them.
|February 11th, 2008||#4|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
There is no Freedom of Speech in Canada
Support free speech online - because the government doesn't By Sea
Sea rants about being confronted by the police after a singer couldn't take what was pretty normal internet name calling.
Recently, I published an article about a Los Angeles-based rock star wannabe lead singer not being able to take constructive criticism on her music - notably, the first song of hers I'd ever said anything bad about. The opinion was unwarranted, unacceptable, according to her. She told me she only wants to hear from me if I like a song, otherwise my opinion is worthless. This followed a heated exchange through email where the level of decently regressed to her calling me somebody who belonged in diapers wah wah wah, and I told her to grow the fuck up, because she was acting like a spoiled little brat. I ignored her last two emails because they were getting stupid and were not worth the time to read them, so instead I published a short blurb about my personal feelings on the matter.
I interviewed her and members of her band a month or two ago on my radio show as a preview to their upcoming album release. By the way, I've played their music frequently on my weekly Internet radio music show, spread the word about her band, and distributed a half-dozen promo CDs she mailed to me. I supported her ambitions and was determined to help her when I could. I had her band in my notes to consider for work on various live tours, a movie soundtrack and a long line of concert & festival ideas over the years.
Now, I resent her and my wasted efforts, and hope she vanishes into a cesspool of livid normalcy.
If she wasn't receptive to my comments, she shouldn't have accepted my other ideas for her that she thought would be great to adopt in the past, such as a journal of her thoughts (similar to how I use this website to post what's on my mind - such as her acting in a psychotic manner) or all of her used and unused lyrics, as lyrics are very dear to her.
Who is she?
The reason I'm not mentioning her name is because, as recently advised by the Toronto Police, I'm not allowed to. Sure, I can say whatever I want about her contrived music, her inconsistent vocals or her try hard lyrics, her ambitions for musical success through making money and gaining "fans" rather than maybe enjoying her work as an art. Just no negative posts, jokes or references, not just by me, but other free-willed, opinionated people of our worldwide UM community.
It's not even her real name, anyway. Draw your own conclusions. Protection of her image must be something sleazy involved.
You see, she, or a friend of hers, contacted the police in LA, and it got back up to here in Toronto, when I was visited by two police officers. I was upfront and cooperated with them, sharing my perspective and politics on the matter and really, it comes down to free speech online. Under no pressure to do anything, I sent an apology email and closed the thread, meaning nobody further could post in it.
That wasn't good enough, and I've had increasingly tense phone calls to discuss further action, and further demands, and I've pretty much had enough of this.
After days of being what now feels like harassment, I was requested to remove all negative comments about her that might affect her in her career. I would say her fatally flawed personality and overreaction to FREEDOM OF SPEECH is more of a threat to her so-called career, because this shit isn't going to cut it in the world. Don't talk about fucking the system if you're going to rely on the system to pursue your dirty laundry.
Look at pretty much any internet community and see what the conversations are about, much of it is bashing, much of it is solid discussion, it's balanced. Shit, people have posted DEATH THREATS and my HOME ADDRESS/PHONE NUMBER online with the message for people to come and fuck me up.
I've hidden the article about her, not that I wanted to, but because I wanted to write this new one about what had happened. It's the truth, it is what happened. Do not assume this is a precedent because the next person to try something like this can kiss themselves goodbye. (Was that threatening? Should I be watching how I say things? Fuck knows anymore.) However, this is a free message board and people are free to post what they like about her - or about anybody else, including me - on here. There are comments about her elsewhere, good and bad, that simply will not be removed. Absolutely not. If that is not good enough, then they better charge me with something and lock me away forever, and things are going to change for everybody else because of how I will react to that.
Once and for all we will demonstrate why posting the truth and people's opinions should not be tampered with because some egotistical moron took exception to personal, silly, admittedly immature comments. Should we edit or attempt to forget the truth, like the uproar about Neo-Nazis claiming the holocaust never happened? Or education in places like Singapore, China, North Korea or even the United States, where the truth is manipulated under the guise of keeping up appearances and "national unity"?
Theoretically, somebody stifled into watching what they say publicly could set up a private forum dedicated to hating somebody and how they're going to kill them, and nobody would know. Pushing things underground is where problems begin, and the police should damn well know this by now.
Are we in fucking China, where they employ thousands upon thousands of web monitors, watching what people say and censoring every last piece of content conflicting to the propaganda their leaders has spewed on their population?
The beauty of the internet is that you can post anything you like, and if you don't agree with what somebody else says, you can ignore it, or post in response to it. Calling the police is mindless. What a fucking waste of resources. Toronto's crime continues to rise, we have hostage takings, gun control issues, everybody's on drugs, ... and this is the waste of time and manpower. The US is such a mess! Like Los Angeles doesn't have far worse things to deal with than a flaky rock 'n' roll bimbo's bruised ego. Don't you think we could be putting the constable's mental capacities towards solving real crimes, instead of playing the middle man in a completely ludicrously overblown situation?
Welcome to the internet, where freedoms have exceptions, and petty ones at that.
If you wish to comment on this article, you are free to post what you want. I'm not going to edit or delete your comments barring it being Spam, because that's not what we do here. Just don't call the police over mean words about you on a screen.
As I have the wonderful privilege of being allowed to comment on Starlit's music and what I will say is this: They have a couple of solid songs I think are tremendous. They are doing nothing new or inventive, and some of the vocals are the weaknesses of the songs, just because I wish singers would shut the fuck up a little more and let the music play.
There are touches of ego and psychotic behaviour clearly in their lyrics, death, destruction, blood sucking and the dark underground which includes drugs, sex and a lot of shitty times.
But from what I've heard through their recent song, Heart in a Cage, if that is the spineless direction they're heading in, then they're in for a rough ride, because it is awful, contrived, pointless and irritating.
Anyway, what a waste of time and thought, because of words on a screen. Meanwhile, people are getting shot, stabbed, drugged into doing things they're not aware of, plotting terrorist attacks, stealing, scamming the system, and yet this is where the efforts of the law go towards.
This is not a swipe at the police, whom I have always respected (other than tales of corrupt cops) but rather a swipe at the system, one that maybe people should get a clue about the potential for a better world online, resolving conflicts through words and dialogue, whether they are nice or not, rather than guns, knives, or cross-border police intervention.
And so goes my bullshit experience. That is my opinion, and I will continue to say what I want to say.
|February 11th, 2008||#5|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
HEY, ‘FREE’ CANADA … GET OFF YOUR BLOODY KNEES
Hello all …
You may have noticed the postings on my website this week about a man called Richard Warman. His attacks on free speech - including my own - in league with government agencies and Jewish organisations like B’nai B’rith, the Anti-Defamation League (whose job is to defame people) and the Canadian Jewish Congress need urgently to be exposed to the wider world.
This is not just a story about Canada - it is the blueprint for the end of free expression that is unfolding across the planet under the guise of Orwellian terms like ‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Hate Speech’.
I first came across Richard Warman, a ‘lawyer’ working for the Canadian government, when he campaigned with the above organisations to have my public talks in Canada and elsewhere banned because I was a ‘racist’. This is invariably the insult hurled at anyone who gets close to the truth. Even people demanding the truth about 9/11 or those questioning the official version of global warming have been dubbed as akin to ‘Holocaust Deniers’ and if you question any aspect of the official version of the Nazi concentration camps you can now be jailed by the Thought Police.
Ernst Zundel, an elderly pacifist, was illegally abducted from his home in the United States, thrown in a Canadian jail and eventually extradited to Germany to be jailed again for the maximum five years by a kangaroo court masquerading (barely) as the arbiter of ‘justice’.
What was Zundel’s ‘crime’? Differing from the official history of what happened in the Nazi camps. He was, in other words, jailed for this thoughts, his views.
Even his lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, has now been jailed for three-and-a-half years, and banned from practising law for five years, for having the same thoughts and views as her client.
All this in ‘free’ Germany.
What happens in fascist states is that the verdict and the sentence are agreed before the trial or the evidence. That is what happened with Zundel and that is what happens in the ‘justice’ and ‘human rights’ system in Canada, as we shall see.
What we need to understand before all freedom is extinguished is that you don’t have to agree with what someone says to defend their right to say it. Indeed, you are defending your right to say and think what you choose because unless everyone has free speech and free thought then no-one does. You can’t be free to think and say what you believe if someone is deciding what you can think and say.
That is not freedom of speech or thought - it is the freedom to agree with what the Big Brother state allows you to think and say.
As Voltaire is claimed to have said: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
Why? Because your freedom is my freedom.
So what is happening in Canada and elsewhere is an attack on the freedom of everyone and what is happening is truly, truly, staggering in what is claimed - hilariously - to be a ‘free society’.
Richard Warman was a member of the Canadian Green Party when I first came across him in the 1990s and he went on to be an ‘investigator’ for the Canadian Government’s ‘Human Rights’ Commission (which is like George Orwell calling his propaganda ministry the ‘Ministry of Truth’).
Warman would find out where I was speaking and then contact the venue to say that I was an ‘anti-Semite’ who was going to blame Jews for everything in my presentation. Most of the spineless idiots at these venues - with honourable exceptions - would then ban the event without any further investigation.
You can see him at work trying to stop my talk in Vancouver in a British Channel 4 television documentary from 2001. The link is at the end of this article.
It got so ridiculous at one point that Warman, writing from Canada, almost had me banned from speaking at the little local theatre a few miles from my home in England where I had spoken with no problem many times before.
In the end, the local council insisted on having an ‘observer’ at the event to ensure that I did not break ‘racism laws’. What did she find? Nothing, of course not. But truth is irrelevant - so long as the mud sticks it’s job done.
This is what Richard Warman really believes about ‘human rights’ and free expression. He was asked about his attempts to ban my public events by the London Independent on Sunday magazine. This was his reply:
‘He has taken all the conspiracy theories that ever existed and melded them together to create an even greater conspiracy of his own. His writings may be the work of a madman, or of a genuine racist. Either way they are very dangerous …
… ‘If he’s unstable then so are his followers, who hang on his every word. What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?’
That’s right, a self-styled ‘human rights’ campaigner actually said: ‘What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?’
This is the mentality we are dealing with here from a Canadian government lawyer who specialises in targeting people who supposedly breach human rights!! You couldn’t make it up.
As a result of the campaign against me by Warman, B’nai B’rith, the Anti-Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress, I am stopped, searched and questioned without fail every time I pass through a Canadian airport because I am on a computer ’stop’ list. What do they find? Nothing. But what happens the next time I go there? The same.
On one occasion I was held for six hours into the night at Ottawa airport and then again the next morning when all I am saying is that we need to love each other, forget our manufactured differences and unite behind freedom for all, no matter what your colour, creed or religion.
In a speech in Toronto on July 6th 2005, Warman described his modus operandi as a technique of ‘Maximum Disruption’:
‘I’ve come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a ‘maximum disruption’ approach. … If I think that they’ve violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, then I’ll look at all of the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a ‘worst offender’ basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit.’
‘The “maximum disruption” part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun, I strongly believe in hitting the neo-nazis on as many of these fronts as possible either at the same time or one after the other. I say this because it keeps them off-balance and forces them to respond to things that focus their energies on defending themselves …’
(My emphasis. D.I.).
Warman, still an employee of the Canadian government the last I heard, is always strongly supported by B’nai B’rith (Rothschilds), the Anti-Defamation League (Rothschilds) and the Canadian Jewish Congress or ‘CJC’ (Bronfman family, connected to the Rothschilds).
So much so that the CJC gave him its Saul Hayes Human Rights Award for ‘distinguished service to the cause of human rights’ (no, that’s not a joke) and a report by the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission said that Warman ‘has recently written a detailed report on Internet hate in Canada for the national Jewish group B’nai B’rith’s Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents’.
What is the extent of the connection between Warman and B’nai Brith, the Anti-Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress? Can anyone help?
It gets even more outrageous when you consider that Richard Warman has been using aliases, including one called Mary Dufford, to post racist comments on the very websites that he and the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission then target for being racist.
One rant posted on a forum called http:www.Freedomsite.org on September 5th 2003 can be seen below. Apologies for the language, but we are adults and this is what was posted about a black Canadian Senator called Anne Cools.
‘Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!’
This was posted by a user name called ’90sAREover’ and it was following this that a Warman ‘investigation’ began into racist postings on the Freedomsite. So who was the poster of this vicious, stomach-turning racism on a site then targeted by Richard Warman for prosecution by the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission?
Well, well, well.
The owner of the Freedomsite and the target of Warman’s subsequent ‘investigation’ is a man called Marc Lemire, a computer ‘nerd’ and technical expert who traced the posting to the same computer (IP address = 18.104.22.168) from which was posted another user name called ‘Lucy’.
Who was ‘Lucy’, by his own admission under oath? Richard Warman.
Another computer expert, Bernard Klatt, did his own investigation into the origin of this sick and despicable attack on Anne Cools and this was his verdict in an affidavit submitted as evidence to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 8th 2007:
‘Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts “90sAREover” and “lucy” are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed “Cools don’t belong in our Senate” posted September 5, 2003.’
Don’t bother pinching yourself, I’ve tried. It was also admitted by the ‘Human Rights’ Commission that its ’senior human rights investigator’, Dean Steacy, posts on the ‘White Pride’ Stormfront website using the name ‘Jadewarr’. The game is simple: get an anonymous account to post racist comments on a website and then charge the website owners with posting racist comments.
Richard Warman is saying of David Icke at this point in the TV documentary: ‘I think we can release the hounds now’.
Canadian author and journalist, Mark Steyn, summed it up very well this week when he wrote:
‘As I said previously, this isn’t entrapment; it’s manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.
Furthermore, when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.
For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.’
What has happened to Richard Warman as a result of these extraordinary revelations in the ‘free’ country of Canada where ‘everyone is treated equally’? Nothing. As Mark Steyn wrote:
‘If this is correct, I don’t see how it’s possible to regard the Canadian Human Rights Commission as anything other than a racket for one of its former employees. Why should Richard Warman collect five-figure sums from suing websites for “crimes” in which he has himself participated?’
So why is Warman Teflon Man? Why does nothing ever stick or prompt further official investigation?
Warman has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars by the ‘Human Rights’ Commission that he used to work for and invariably his targets are those without the resources to defend themselves nor pay the fine and money to him without extreme hardship.
Warman brings his cases under something called Section 13 of the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Act which is simply a vehicle for blatant censorship. It makes it a ‘discriminatory practice’ for ‘a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt …’ This includes areas like race, religion, sex and a long list of others. Who decides what is ‘likely’? The government agency.
Read that again and you’ll see that this could be applied to almost any criticism or contrary opinion. It is a censorship charter and the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission has said that the truth of any statement is no defence. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, Dean Steacy, the Stormfront poster ‘Jadewarr’, said: ‘Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value’.
For violating Section 13 (or rather when the ‘Human Rights’ Commission has decreed that you have) you can be subject to a lifetime ban on your opinions registered with the Federal Court, a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years in jail.
Now … are you ready for this …? Journalist Mark Steyn writes:
‘In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole “complainant,” one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal “human rights” star chamber since 2002 — and he’s won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn’t have to demonstrate that he’s been deprived of his human rights, only that it’s “likely” (i.e. “highly un-”) that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime.’
Some more outrageous statistics:
100% of cases have white people as respondents
98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
So far, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
72.4% of complaints specifically identify ‘Jews’ as victims.
As the grip tightens on human freedom this censorship is now targeting even mainstream media outlets like Macleans Magazine and what you are reading here is what is planned for everyone all over the world - that’s the ‘Totalitarian Tiptoe’ with regard to Political Correctness. That’s the agenda behind it all. It is not about ‘protecting minorities’, it is about controlling everyone - including the ‘minorities’.
It is actually playing ‘minorities’ off against each other. If a black person says something a gay person doesn’t like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police. But if the gay person says something the black person doesn’t like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police.
It is classic and blatant divide and rule under the guise of ‘protecting minorities’.
Another ‘modus’ of Richard Warman is to launch libel actions against those who defend themselves from his attacks on their character or give their opinion of him and his agenda. He has had one running against me now for nearly six years on the book, Children of the Matrix, which was published seven years ago.
Among the ludicrous alleged ‘libels’ is that, sit down and take a breath, I called him a ‘censor’ and an enemy of free speech.
Children of the Matrix was published in 2001 and Warman was at my event in Montreal, Canada (which he had worked so hard to ban) when that book was on sale for the first time. In other words, he read what I wrote about him in the summer of 2001.
So did he contact me or the publisher to make a complaint and discuss it? Oh no. Without contacting me in any way, he began writing to bookstores and distributors telling them that he was taking a libel action against me and if they did not stop handling the book they would be included.
Most of these sad and spineless people allowed themselves to be intimidated and the book lost massive potential sales, for which I shall be seeking compensation. Given that Warman was in the Canadian Green Party at the time, a British Green Party member called Justin Walker contacted him and offered to arrange a meeting with me at which his problem could be discussed and resolved. Warman just scoffed at the idea and dismissed it.
Instead he waited almost a year after he had first read the book before issuing me with a libel writ - just before his deadline for doing so ran out. When he threatened the biggest British book distributor, W H Smith, with being included in the action they looked at his behaviour and described it to me as ‘bizarre’.
Six years later the case is still rolling on and in the meantime he has continued to behave with regard to freedom of expression in precisely the way I describe in my book - I mean, see above.
Still, at least a full blown court hearing will reveal to the public and the worldwide Internet community the extraordinary story of Richard Warman and the true identity of ’90sAREover’ and the Anne Cools posting that Warman has denied on oath was him even though the ‘IP’ (computer) address is the same as the one he used for ‘Lucy’.
Today eyes are now opening ever-wider in Canada to what has been going on and Mark Steyn wrote an excellent article for Macleans Magazine headed ‘Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?’ See the links at the end of this text. In another exposé of Warman’s weapon-of-choice, Section 13, Steyn says:
‘At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, Agent Dean Steacy should be removed from all “hate” cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German Warman vacated. The mountain of phoney-baloney “jurisprudence” based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.
In the end, Maclean’s and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It’s time to end it.’
I repeat, this is not just about Canada or Macleans Magazine or me. It is about all of us. Different sections of society are being picked off while the rest look the other way because they think it does not affect them. Oh, but it does.
Last edited by Alex Linder; February 11th, 2008 at 01:43 AM.
|February 11th, 2008||#6|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
Keith Martin's good fight
Published: Wednesday, February 06, 2008
It has been about three years since the longtime Reform MP Keith Martin fled from the turmoil of the unite-the-right movement, which was then just about to reach its final consummation, and crossed the House of Commons floor to a new home in the Liberal party. It is good to see that his time amongst the Grits has not dulled his taste for the commonsense libertarianism that was Reform's major selling point.
Last Thursday, Mr. Martin filed notice of a private member's motion in favour of repealing subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). That section makes it a punishable offence to use telephones or the internet to promote "hatred or contempt" of any of the protected groups in the CHRA. By and large, the impugned behaviour is the same as that which is covered by the hate-propaganda section of the Criminal Code, Section 319. The difference in the context of human rights law is that a party who takes offence can have an investigation launched, and force a fellow citizen to undertake a legal defence, without having to comply with the rules of due process or the evidentiary standards that prevail in an actual courtroom.
This, indeed, is the entire pretext behind federal and provincial human rights laws as imagined by those who created them in the 1970s: to open a low-cost road to redress of grievances in employment and housing for society's most vulnerable groups. But a tool originally created to mitigate economic injustice has now become a weapon against the freedom of news-gathering and opinion. Aggrieved Muslims have been using it to vex high-profile conservative targets such as Ezra Levant, Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn for daring to inform and pronounce on the relationship between Islam and terrorism. That engineered attempt to chill legitimate debate has led to an online backlash within Canada, and to unprecedented scrutiny of Canadian human rights law from without. Mr. Martin's Commons motion was obviously intended to serve as a gesture of solidarity with freedom of expression, and perhaps he thought that it was the liberal, or the Liberal, thing to do.
Unfortunately, Liberals are not always reliably liberal in the best sense of the term. Mr. Martin has been challenged by some Liberal critics who want to know why he is proposing to proffer aid and comfort to potential preachers of hate speech, and Liberal leader Stephane Dion has apparently taken their side of the question, asking the MP to withdraw his motion voluntarily. In the view of these critics, any change in the law that might make it slightly harder for the government to take action against some neo-Nazi creep in a mildewed basement is a threat to the entire edifice of Canadian democracy.
Consistently applied, of course, such a standard would allow for unlimited interrogation and arbitrary detention of those who promulgate "unacceptable" ideas -- and heaven help you if you find yourself on the wrong side of the line of unacceptability. It would effectively annul the freedom of expression enshrined as "fundamental" in our Liberal-made Charter of Rights. (Those attacking Mr. Martin seem curiously confident that they would never in a million years utter an opinion so contrarian, exotic or surprising that it offended somebody.)
This freedom, and the limits to which it is subject, are part of the same legislative and judicial legacy. The wise and logically unimpeachable rule Canada has evolved is that such limits are tolerable only if they are minimally compromising, effective and rational; the ongoing spectacle of the absurdist human rights range war between Muslims and conservatives is sufficient, by itself, to show that none of these tests have been met.
It is nonsense to suggest that reining in human rights legislation, and leaving the policing of hate speech up to the actual police, would be some sort of treason to the legacy of Trudeauvian liberalism. Keith Martin should not be made to feel that he is committing sacrilege by treating permanent Charter values as more important than a particular federal statute. Indeed, he should be celebrated for doing it, and not just by Liberals.
|February 11th, 2008||#7|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
The Radical Press latest victim of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
B’nai Brith and Harry Abrams accuse the website of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel ”
On January 3, 2008, Arthur Topham, Editor of the Radical Press responded to yet another politically motivated complaint – the type the Canadian Human Rights Commission love. The complainant this time is Harry Abrams and the misnamed League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith.
In their typical Orwellian way, the CHRC demanded answers to 10 questions, whose answers they will later use to send this case to a tribunal. From past experience the only answers they care to see are that your responsible. Whatever defence the victims puts up is just ignored. After all, with show trials, a defence is of little help.
Here is what the Radical Press wrote:
ANSWERS TO CHRC QUESTIONAIRE:
1. Do you own and/or control radicalpress.com? If not, do you know who own’s [sic] and/or controls this website?
Yes. I own and control radicalpress.com
2. What is the purpose of this website?
The Radical Press is a Sole Proprietorship business registered with the provincial government in Victoria , B.C. It was formed in 1998 when I began publishing a monthly alternative tabloid known as The Radical. The online version of this hard copy newspaper is known as Radicalpress.com . The purpose of the Radical Press and Radicalpress.com, like all news services, is to present to the general public news, information and opinions with which readers can better understand the world they are living in. The forum is provided, as is/was a Letters to the Editor page in The Radical, for public input, debate and feedback.
3. What is the intent of the information/documentation posted on this website?
See answer to Question #2.
4. Who is responsible for editing and/or posting the content of the information/documentation on this website?
5. How are the documents being posted on this website?
Documents are received from various writers on the net either via email or from their own websites or listserv or in hardcopy format or else written by myself and then republished on my site.
6. What is your relationship to radicalpress.com?
The Radical Press is my voice on the world wide web and the vehicle that I use to exercise my human right to freedom of the press and self-expression.
7. Who is the webmaster of this website?
I am the webmaster of radicalpress.com
8. Who is responsible for monitoring the forums on your website? What are your rules and regulations concerning the postings of messages on the forums? What is the criteria used to remove postings?
I am responsible for all aspects of monitoring the Radical Press forum. The rules and regulations are simple: no racist comments or articles are allowed. If this is discovered on the forum the post is removed and the poster is given a fair warning to not repeat their error. If they do they are deleted from the forum.
9. In reviewing your website, it would appear that radicalpress.com active [sic] links to organizations such as http://www.Stormfront.org . What is the purpose of making these links available and active?
Again, please see response to Question #2.
10. Who is your present Internet Service Provider (ISP)? Where is it located? Please provide a copy of the ISP’s arrangement. Please provide a copy of the agreement with ISP.
All information regarding my ISP, its location and whatever agreements I have with it, are of a private business nature no different than my bank account and credit card information and passwords, etc. No organization, including the CHRC, has a right to this information. I have committed no criminal act and therefore am entitled to retain my legal business rights.
|February 11th, 2008||#8|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
Typical case (from 2007): faggot complains about Christian website calling faggotry immoral. Here's the settlement:
Settlement is: 1: The respondents publicly declare and affirm that they understand the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act
2: Respondents agree to remove letter entitles “Homosexual Agenda Wicked”
3: Cease and Desist order to not “expose homosexual persons to hatred or contempt”
4: Cease and Desist order to not “retaliate or threaten retaliation against complainant”
5: Letter of apology posted to the website of: Concerned Christians Canada and Freedom Radio for a period of not less that TWO years
6: Take an educational seminar on human rights law with staff at CHRC
7: Craig Chandler agrees to cooperate with complainant to “ensure that the material referred to in paragraph 2 above is not posted on other internet sites.
|February 11th, 2008||#9|
Re: The Legal Situation in Canada
Read this to understand the way the Canadian censors think and operate...
|February 19th, 2008||#10|
Jonathan Kay on Richard Warman and Canada's phony-racism industry
Posted: February 18, 2008, 1:14 PM by Jonathan Kay
Canadians now know the precise moment when radical anti-racism became a more powerful sociological toxin than racism itself: 7:55pm EST on Sept. 5, 2003.
That is the date-stamp on a particularly vile posting, left by an anonymous user on the message board of the right-wing web site freedomsite.org, attacking Canada’s first black senator. It read as follows: “Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women *** imports knew their place … And that place was NOT in public!”
Horrible, shocking stuff. But even more shocking is the identity of the fellow whose electronic fingerprints were all over the message: famed Canadian human-rights lawyer Richard Warman.
Warman is a legend in anti-racism circles. A former member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he’s launched countless complaints against right-wing extremists, and won almost all of them. But during proceedings surrounding one of Warman’s 2003-era complaints against freedomsite, the respondents turned the tables. A computer expert named Bernard Klatt did some digging under freedomsite’s back office, and determined that the Cools posting had been made from a computer bearing the IP address 22.214.171.124, the very same address from which Warman had admitted to visiting freedomsite using a different alias.
Other technical details – such as the operating system and Web browser being used – also provided an exact match to Warman. Based on this evidence, Klatt concluded in a recently publicized affidavit, “Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed ‘Cools don’t belong in our Senate.’ ”
Does this mean Warman is a closet bigot? I doubt it. What seems more likely is that – like other anti-racism activists – Warman simply found himself running out of Aryan Nation types to chase around the Internet. And so, under this theory, he decided to just start typing the stuff up on his own computer – and then added these self-authored “racist” postings to his blunderbuss brief against freedomsite. (As Klatt notes, Warman has been accused of perpetrating the same sort of stunts on other right-wing Web sites.) When you’ve got profitable hate-speech cases to prosecute, why wait for some unemployed conspiracy theorist to start raving against immigrants when you can just manufacture the evidence yourself?
Bizarre as this episode may be, it is of a piece with a larger trend – symbolized, south of the border, by the shamefully trumped up case against the Duke University lacrosse team. The anti-racism industry, running out of legitimate hatemongers to go after, has gone rogue in its search for attention and relevance. [In contrast to the fabricated Duke case, consider how the media suppressed the story of the murder of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom AND an article by black columnist Leonard Pitts, an article that essentially told every White man and woman in America that they deserved being victimized by blacks].
It also raises the question: How many other faux-racist frauds are out there? Thanks to Warman, it's a question I now think about every time a Canadian hate-speech activist or blogger publicizes an email he gets from some [email protected] or other. These poisonous messages are held up as dramatic proof that there are still plenty of Nazi types out there – and that without hate-speech laws to shut them up, the country’s gays, Jews, Black and Arabs will remain at risk of verbal assault, or worse. But if the picking are so slim that anti-racists have slid into second careers as fiction writers, what does that say about the scale of the problem? How many of the other examples of “hate” that you see out there are similarly bogus?
The anti-racism industry has become an industry like any other: As the actual need for what its peddling has diminished in this extraordinarily tolerant nation, the industry’s various profiteers and carnival barkers have created myths and exaggerated fears to prop themselves up.
As I’ve written before, this would not be so much a problem if their various speech codes were used merely to prosecute men such as David Ahenakew, Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra and the like. But in the post-9/11 era, radical anti-racists are also agitating to shut up sensible people saying sensible things about the war against militant Islam, the defining global struggle of our era. They’re also giving comfort to Islamists who seek to carve out sectarian taboos from our hallowed tradition of free speech. [Obviously our Kanadian reporter isn't all that enlightened, apparently he still supports the persecution/prosecution of truth tellers like Zundel and Ahenakew].
All of this would be destructive enough on its own. When the censors start churning out the hate speech themselves – that makes them as much a farce as a menace. [Farce was a poor word choice - probably used in an attempt to mitigate what Warman actually did. Criminal is infinitely more accurate. Warman fabricated evidence that was used in the development of laws that have since been utilized to throw innocent poeple in prison. I doubt they'd consider their incareceration a "farce"].
Original source where the article was censored and deleted > HERE
Send Jonathon Kay an email of support, no doubt he'll need it after being browbeaten by Canadian Jewry over these last few days. You can do so HERE
|February 21st, 2008||#11|
The CJC's disingenuous stance
Colby Cosh, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Yesterday, Bernie Farber and Len Rudner, two officials of the Canadian Jewish Congress, were given space in these pages to defend Canadian human rights law from the frequent criticisms it has received from National Post editorialists and contributors. Why would a newspaper do such a thing? Because unlike Messrs. Farber and Rudner, it believes that a wide-open marketplace of competing ideas is the best guarantee a liberal democracy has against the spread of noxious and nonsensical doctrines. I suppose that after the authors' naked pandering to fears of violence and vandalism, and their hilariously revealing hints at possessing some special expertise in the super-sciency-sounding field of "antihate," one could say, "Q.E.D., gentlemen," and be done with the subject.
But responsible journalism demands, if nothing else, that the record be set straight about the example they used of how strong protections for free speech-- the kind we are promised in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but not granted in the practise of federal and provincial human rights commissions -- can lead to bloodshed. Farber and Rudner begin their piece by throwing the placid appeal to reason out the window at once and memorializing Pamela Waechter, who was fatally wounded in a mass shooting at the offices of the Jewish Federation of Seattle in July, 2006. "Her crime, and that of five wounded co-workers, was being Jewish," they write. And they are right.
But could there be any relevant details they left out? With all their talk of swastikas on synagogue walls and "white supremacists," one might imagine that Pamela Waechter was murdered by some rampaging neo-Nazi skinhead [Which is what the Jew wants the reader to think]. The perpetrator was in fact one Naveed Afzal Haq, whose Pakistani father founded the local Islamic centre and who shouted at his victims, "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." In a call to 911 operators Haq also said, "These are Jews and I'm tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East." It is bizarre, and definitely in questionable taste, for officials of the CJC to use such a case as a pretext for defending laws which have become controversial because Muslims have
been using them to suppress implied criticism of their faith. Hate laws that are only ever used against the official-language media, and that essentially stop at the door of the family home and the mosque, won't do much to save Jews from Muslim fanatics. Some free, frank and timely discussion of Islam's compatibility with Western society just might.
In support of human rights commissions, Farber and Rudner paint a picture of a rising tide of "hate crime" as defined under the Criminal Code --i.e., otherwise illegal acts conjoined with signs of prejudicial motivation. This is another weird argument for them to make. The inescapable conclusion, if you believe them, is that the recent empowerment of those commissions to cut hatred off at the root, in the realm of texts and images, has completely failed to protect the public. But statistics of the sort they cite are not of much use anyway: police are still learning to look for elements of "hate" in investigating assaults and vandalism, and it is impossible to distinguish the effects of that expensive, onerous education process from any actual increase in racist or interreligious violence.
What the CJC fails to appreciate is that any belief about the changing quantity of hostility in Canadian society is compatible with strong views in favour of free speech. It's true that there is a tendency within the "antihate" community to conjure up a Nazi bogeyman whenever human rights commissions are criticized: Farber and Rudner's Tuesday op-ed, in its calculated misrepresentation of Pamela Waechter's demise and its self-glamourizing claptrap about "barricades," provides an outstandingly shameless example of the practice -- all while denying that it ever occurs.
But if our streets were flooded with real Nazis, our devotion to the spirit of free expression, and our determination to resist illiberal ideas, would become the more important, not less. The original Nazis, after all, didn't exterminate the Jews of Europe and only then suppress free speech and the press; Hitler had the relevant guarantees in the Weimar constitution suspended in 1933, just one month into his chancellorship. An expert on hatred ought to have figured out that genocide, far from being prevented by governments and their instruments of control and censorship, almost inevitably takes place under their concealing shadow.
|February 25th, 2008||#12|
Canadian Gays Urge More Government Control Of Private And Home Schools Over 'Homophobia'
March 7, 2007 - Gay activist groups in Ontario are urging the provincial ministry of education to exert more control over private and home schools to fight against the alleged effects of homophobia.
LifesiteNews.com reports on an article in Ottawa's Capital Xtra that objects to religious schools teaching "only their own values."
The article by Tony Lovink claims that "All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobia. Lovink describes himself as a gay Christian school teacher.
The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario says it is concerned that the provincial ministry of education was failing to exert "more control" over the curriculum used by private religious schools. The coalition also objects to private schools hiring teachers based upon the school's own qualification requirements.
In October 2006, the Quebec government ordered private Christian schools to begin teaching sex education and Darwinism in compliance with the provincial curriculum. Schools failing to implement these materials were threatened with closure.
Faggots want to force faggotry on homeschooled children
In British Columbia, gay activists Murray Corren and Peter Corren were granted power over the provincial school curriculum as part of a lawsuit settlement. The settlement also introduced a policy prohibiting parents from removing their children from the classroom when gay-affirmative materials were being taught.
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for "Homophobia"
OTTAWA, Ontario, February 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for "homophobic" teaching stemming from the schools' primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa's homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.
In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values."
|February 26th, 2008||#13|
[A jew discusses speech control in Canada. No mention that the laws he wants lifted are used almost exclusively against critics of jews and their policies. No, the only time jews come out in favor of free speech is when laws against it are used against jews. That's not what the laws were enacted for! I swear god, you cannot find a single article about free speech in Canada, published in a major paper, that was not written by a kike.]
Free speech, hate, and the Jews
Jonathan Kay, National Post Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Some 80 years ago, "Big Mose" Barnett, a notorious Minneapolis gangland chief, sent his crew to shake down a dry cleaner by the name of Samuel Shapiro. When Shapiro refused to pay, Barnett's thugs sprayed down his customers' clothes with acid.
Modern stereotypes notwithstanding, Jewish gangs were no joke in the 1920s. And they weren't above rubbing out nosey journalists. None of the local newspapers would touch the Shapiro story -- except one: a weekly rag called the Saturday Press, published by a certain Jay M. Near. That lone tabloid made a difference. When Near wrote a scathing article about Shapiro's plight, embarrassed prosecutors moved against Barnett's men.
Unfortunately, apart from being a fearless scourge of the underworld, Near was also quite the politically incorrect hothead. One of his Saturday Press articles, for instance, declared that "practically every vendor of vile hooch, every owner of a moonshine still, every snake-faced gangster and exbryonic yegg in the Twin Cities is a Jew." (Don't ask me what a yegg is, let alone an "exbryonic" one. I have no idea.)
In 1927, the courts shut the Saturday Press down under Minnesota's Public Nuisance Law, which banned any newspaper that was "malicious, scandalous and defamatory." Near appealed the judgment, and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. His victory created a landmark in First Amendment jurisprudence, and paved the way for the ultra-free press Americans now enjoy.
Did Near win because the high court was packed with anti-Semites? Just the opposite. As former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis notes in a new book, Freedom for the Thought We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, a crucial swing vote in the Court's 5-4 majority was that of Louis Brandeis. As someone old enough to remember Ulysses Grant's mass-expulsion of the Jews from conquered Union territories during the Civil War, Brandeis had more than a passing knowledge of anti-Semitism. Yet he was also a principled legal scholar who understood the value of a free press. It speaks volumes about America's constitutional tradition that a man such as Near would be un-muzzled by the first Jew who ever sat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here in Canada, things have followed a different route. Crucially, the most important hate-speech precedents in this country arose after the Holocaust, at a time when suppressing hatred was taken to be a more important goal than protecting freedom.
The creation of human-rights tribunals and Canada's hate-speech law -- Section 319 of the Criminal Code -- were both cheered by the Jewish legal and activist establishment. In the seminal 1990 case of R. vs. Keegstra, which upheld the validity of Section 319, the intervenors included not only Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith, but also InterAmicus, a think-tank then headed by renowned inter-national-law expert (and future federal justice minister) Irwin Cotler. (Read the Supreme Court's Keegstra judgment and you will find chunks lifted straight from the InterAmicus brief.)
Over time, the prosecution of anti-Semites such as Ernst Zundel, James Keegstra and Malcolm Ross created a legal template for Canada's hate-speech jurisprudence. It created a moral template as well: Censorship advocates justified their speech codes by appealing to the horrors of the Holocaust. To oppose hate-speech laws -- many human-rights types argue to this day -- is to give comfort to fans of Mein Kampf.
It goes without saying that the battle against anti-Semitism is an important one. And those who've made it their life's calling deserve our respect. That said, it is clear that Canada's Jewish establishment put its chips down on the wrong side of the hate-speech issue. On a purely gut level, it may seem comforting to have laws on the books that gag society's bigots. But, as is always the case with ideologically motivated censorship, the long-run cost exceeds the benefit.
That cost includes the crippling of debate that inevitably arises when you declare any point of view -- no matter how odious -- off limits. As the recent human-rights cases against Maclean's and the Western Standard show, there will always be complainants and commissars willing to expand the definition of prohibited speech to encompass legitimate discourse. Ironically, the censorship regime that well-meaning Jewish intellectuals helped put in place to fight anti-Semitism a generation ago is now being applied to prosecute the pundits blowing the whistle on the one truly genuine existential threat that Jews are facing worldwide: militant Islam. Thin-skinned types may find Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn over the top. But then, lots of people said the same thing about Near. Whether the threat is Shariah or shakedowns, the marketplace of ideas needs its fearless mavericks. Just ask Samuel Shapiro. Better yet, ask Irshad Manji, Salim Mansur, Ujjal Dosanjh, Tarek Fatah or any of the other identity-politics dissidents who've been labelled "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" by members of their own communities.
As far as Canadian Jews are concerned, there is another less obvious cost to putting the community's moral authority behind institutionalized censorship: It cements a collective self-identity based around victimhood. The message is: "We are so vulnerable, so incapable of arguing down the brain-dead lunatics who attack us with words, that we need state censors to act as our shield."
Though criminal prosecutions against anti-Semites are actually quite rare, the few that arise encourage the conceit of a community besieged by murderous hatred. This conceit, though useful in creating a shared sense of community solidarity, has served to distract Canadian Jews from the happy fact that anti-Semitism is completely extinct in our society's respectable mainstream. Canada is probably as close to a post-anti-Semitic society as has ever existed in any nation in Western history -- including modern-day Israel. But you wouldn't know it from the lachrymose doom-speak emanating from the acronymed Jewish activist establishment.
That is one of the many reasons why the stakes are so high in the fight to reform human-rights law in this country. The ongoing sniping match between Levant and the Jewish establishment, petty as it may seem to some, is essentially a proxy battle in a larger struggle for the political soul of the Jewish community. It is a fight between those Jews who support free speech, and those who support censorship; between those focused on the new threat of militant Islam, and those still worried about neo-Nazi kooks; between those who want Jews to take a vocal leadership role in the defining ideological battle of our time, and those who see themselves as passive victims who require protection from a nanny state.
I know what side I'm on. But ink-stained journalistic yeggs such as me and Ezra can take this battle only so far -- even with righteous gentiles like Keith Martin on our side. What we really need to lead this movement is a Canadian Brandeis. Mr. Cotler, what do you say to switching teams?
|February 28th, 2008||#14|
A fresh look at free speech
Party leaders promise review of human rights commission
February 28, 2008
In the past few years, several Albertans -- a pastor, a Catholic bishop, a magazine publisher among them -- have stood before the Alberta Human Rights Commission, accused of publishing things "likely" to expose other people or classes of people "to hatred or contempt."
There, they found the scales of justice tipped against them, being denied a real court's traditional defences, in cases where no harm need have occurred, and where complainants' fees were paid by the state, but their defence was at their own cost. Yet, their offence was just using long-held, hard-won rights to comment as matters of state were decided, or discussed.
Clearly, something is wrong with Alberta law, if a body set up to decide if a person was denied a job because of race or sex, has been given a censor's powers.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Both Premier Ed Stelmach and Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft have said they're open to a review of sections of the province's human rights act that the commission uses to restrict speech. "I am open to looking at the provision [of the act,]" Stelmach told the Herald editorial board Tuesday, adding he expected the topic to come up, and that every member of his legislative team should speak freely at the caucus table.
Taft said much the same, recalling how he believed the former Tory government had tried to influence the University of Alberta not to publish one of his own books, critical of the Klein revolution. "Free speech is foundational," he told the board. "I'm prepared to look at the act. "
A promise to review is not a promise of reform, of course. Both Stelmach and Taft left themselves wiggle room, Stelmach adding "freedom is a balance," and Taft that free speech was "a judgment call."
Nevertheless, both men deserve praise for vowing to at least look into this vital issue.
Albertans' job for now is to see that whichever party forms government keeps its promise.
Nobody should expect the law to ignore incitement to violence, or hateful acts. But, it must permit people to be offensive.
For the right to speak freely is worth little if it only protects words with which we agree: To be valuable, it must guarantee freedom for words we hate.
Bishops should not fear the law when they preach, nor publishers the wrath of those who would shut down debate, rather than argue their cause. For the health of democracy in Alberta, amending the act is essential.
|March 1st, 2008||#15|
I prefer living with space lizards
Human rights commissions seem to believe that Canadians have some surprising rights
MARK STEYN [jew] | February 27, 2008
What does Maclean's have in common with a labiaplasty and blood-drinking space lizards from the star system Alpha Draconis?
Well, they're all part of the wacky world of Canadian "human rights."
First things first: what is a labiaplasty? Well, it's a cosmetic procedure performed on the female genitalia for those who are dissatisfied with them. I think I speak for many sad male losers living on ever more distant memories when I say that I find it hard to imagine being dissatisfied with female genita . . .
What's that? Oh, it's the women who are dissatisfied are they? Ah, right. Well, there's the rub. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is currently weighing whether or not to become the (at last count) third "human rights" commission in Canada to prosecute Maclean's for the crime of running an excerpt from my book. The Globe And Mail's Margaret Wente was interested to know what Canada's vast "human rights" machinery does when it isn't sticking it to privately owned magazines, so she swung by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to check out the action. And it seems the reason they haven't yet dragged Maclean's into court is because they're tied up hearing the case of two women who claim they were denied their human right to a labiaplasty by a Toronto plastic surgeon who specializes in that particular area. The women proved to be post-operative transsexuals who were unhappy with some of the aesthetic results of their transformation, and Dr. Stubbs declined to perform the procedure on the grounds that he usually operates on biological females and is generally up to speed on what goes where and, when it comes to transsexuals, he had no idea what he was, so to speak, getting into. Had he done it and it had all gone horribly wrong, the plaintiffs would have sued his pants off. So, as a private practitioner, he chose to decline the business, and as a result now finds himself in Human Rights Commission hell.
As Ms. Wente pointed out, you can see what got the "human rights" commissars' juices going: here was an opportunity to lay down a lot of landmark "jurisprudence" on the issue of "transsexuals' access to medical care," and if, in the end, it destroys Dr. Stubbs and his business, hey, that's a price worth paying: the human right to a labiaplasty is too important to a free society. So the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is solemnly deliberating on whether the party of the first part is obliged to take apart the party of the second part's parts.
Dr. Stubbs is a big-shot plastic surgeon, so, like Maclean's, he can probably withstand a few years of "human rights" heat. The system is risk-free for the plaintiff: the Crown picks up the tab for the "complainant," while the "respondent" — i.e. defendant — has to pay his own legal bills no matter what the eventual verdict is. Ted Kindos of Burlington, Ont., has already spent $20,000 of his own dough defending himself against a "human rights" complaint and estimates he'll add another six figures to that before it's all done. Mr. Kindos owns a modest restaurant, Gator Ted's Tap and Grill. So what outrageous "human right" did he breach? Well, he asked a guy smoking "medical marijuana" in the doorway of his restaurant if he wouldn't mind not doing it. Mr. Kindos felt that his customers — including young children — shouldn't have to pass through a haze of pot smoke to enter his establishment. But apparently in Canada there's a human right to light up a spliff in some other fellow's doorway. The other man's grass is always greener, and in this case the plaintiff's grass will cost Mr. Kindos an awful lot of green. He faces financial ruin, while there's no cost to the complainant.
The "human rights" racket is a disgrace. Canadians are not notably "hateful" people. To be sure, deep in the human heart lurk dark prejudices that may occasionally be furtively expressed to like-minded persons over a drink or two. But discrimination in housing and employment on the grounds of gender and race — the original justification for creating the "human rights" pseudo-courts — is all but extinct, so a self-perpetuating nomenklatura has moved on to invent new rights — like the human right to a labiaplasty or a joint on someone else's property. You'll recall the Osgoode Hall law students who objected to my book excerpt in Maclean's demanded a five-page cover story in response, unedited, with the students determining the artwork and the cover art, along with a financial contribution to their "cause." As any self-respecting publisher would, Kenneth Whyte told them he would rather go bankrupt — much as Mr. Kindos seems likely to. The Osgoode students have since explained that they went to the "human rights" enforcers because they were only trying to "start a debate," and mean old Maclean's was preventing their voices from being heard. They have repeated this mournful plea in lengthy editorials they've written for, at last count, the Globe And Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the London Free Press, and no doubt a few other publications. That's the reality of Canada's "Islamophobic" media: they've been given acres of op-ed real estate to yell that their voices are being silenced and all they want to do is start a debate — even though, in none of their many columns, do they actually start it.
Incidentally, although they characterize themselves as the "complainants" in these suits, they're not. In the two "human rights" complaints against Maclean's that are going forward, the complainants in British Columbia are Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and Naiyer Habib, and, in the federal case, Dr. Elmasry alone. Mohamed Elmasry is the man who announced on Canadian TV that he approved of the murder of any and all Israeli civilians over the age of 18. One can understand why such an unlikely poster boy for the cause of "anti-hate" campaigns would prefer to hide behind his fresh-faced Osgoode sock puppets. But the fact that every major newspaper in Canada has opened its pages to turgid recitations of imagined victimhood by three students who have no standing in these cases tells you everything about how "excluded" and "marginalized" they are. That's the "racist" Canadian media of 2008: all you have to do is claim to represent some community with a grievance and, even though there's no evidence you represent anything other than your own peculiar obsessions and you have nothing substantive to say, nine out of 10 editors will open their pages to you — no matter what your interminable victimological prose does to their circulation.
Dr. Keith Martin, a Liberal member of Parliament, the Canadian Association of Journalists, and PEN Canada (i.e. John Ralston Saul and the rest of the CanCon literati) support the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Code, under which Maclean's and Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, have been hauled before the "thought police." Others talk of Maclean's appealing its case (after we lose, as all federal Section 13 defendants do) to the Supreme Court. Last time round, their lordships upheld Section 13 by a four-three majority, announcing confidently that there was "little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning." Of course, that's exactly what has happened, as could have been foreseen by anyone but a Supreme Court judge. This is a philosophically flawed and corruptly administered system that is an affront to Canada's legal inheritance.
That may be why, as even Liberal MPs and PEN Canada understand what's happening, the only defenders of the system are its beneficiaries, like Pearl Eliadis, the former director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who accused me in the Montreal Gazette of "disturbing tactics" for having the impertinence to resist being ruled a hate-monger by a kangaroo court. She claims that I am trying to "disentitle" acknowledged human-rights experts, by which she means a small and unrepresentative clique that has done huge damage to real human rights like the presumption of innocence. "Human rights" plaintiffs are professional activists: since filing her complaint, the transsexual in the labiaplasty case has been given a government job investigating the health status of transsexuals. Richard Warman, the plaintiff in over half of all federal Section 13 cases, is not even a transsexual or a member of any other approved victim group. You can write a piece about Jews, gays, Muslims, transsexuals that offends not a single Jew, gay, Muslim or transsexual. But if Mr. Warman, a former employee of the CHRC, decides to get offended on their behalf he'll drag you before the kangaroo court. He has been a plaintiff on every single federal Section 13 case in the last six years. No other provision of Canadian law has such a deformed profile that is, in effect, the personal plaything of one very strange man.
Oh, and the bit at the top about the space lizards? That's a former BBC sports anchor called David Icke whom Mr. Warman has targeted. Mr. Icke went a little odd a few years back and constructed an all-encompassing conspiracy theory starting from the fact that the Queen and other members of the royal family are blood-drinking shape-shifting humanoid reptilians descended from giant space lizards. Mr. Warman decided to shut him down, telling the Independent On Sunday:
"What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?"
The question is not whether I'm "disentitling" Canada's human rights nomenklatura, but who entitled them in the first place, to the point where Mr. Warman thinks the state commissars should be determining who should be "allowed" to speak. Sorry, but that's not my definition of "human rights." And I'd rather take my chances with a shape-shifting space lizard than an endlessly morphing, ever expanding star chamber that shames Canada.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 1st, 2008 at 11:16 PM.
|March 2nd, 2008||#16|
[the story of Philippe Rushton]
The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science
By J. Philippe Rushton
Department of Psychology
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario N6A 5C2
Liberty, March, 1998, Vol. II, No. 4, pp. 31-35
The decencies and pieties of the age are at war with the pursuit of truth.
On January 19, 1989, in the Sausalito Room of the San Francisco Hilton Hotel, my life changed forever. I stood before a lectern speaking to a symposium of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The title of the brief paper I proceeded to present to the meeting was "Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences)."
I reviewed the international literature recently published in academic peer-reviewed journals. I summarized data about traits like brain size, temperament, speed of maturation, family structure, and reproductive variables. I tentatively concluded, roughly speaking, that East Asians, on average, were slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores than Africans, who tended to the opposite in each of these areas. Whites, I found, fell between the other two groups.
I further contended that this orderly tri-level hierarchy of races in average tendency had its roots not only in economic, cultural, familial, and other environmental forces but also, to a far greater extent than mainstream social science would suggest, in ancient, gene-mediated evolutionary ones. Heredity, or nature - to use the term popularized by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's younger cousin - was every bit as important as environment or nurture, often more so.
To account for the racial pattern in brain size and the other "life-history variables," I proposed a gene-based life-history theory familiar to evolutionary biologists as the r-K scale of reproductive strategy. At one end of this scale are r strategies, which emphasize high reproductive rates, and, at the other K-strategies, which emphasize high levels of parental investment. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of widely disparate species but I used it to describe the immensely smaller variations within the human species. I hypothesized that Mongoloid people are, on average, more K-selected than Caucasoids, who in turn are more K-selected than Negroids.
I also mapped this theory onto human evolution. Molecular genetic evidence shows that modern humans evolved in Africa sometime after 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago, and a Mongoloid/Caucasoid split about 41,000 years ago. The farther north the populations migrated, "out of Africa," the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, they did so by shifting toward larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of sex hormone with concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggression and increases in family stability and longevity.
I did not claim to have established the truth of these hypotheses. They may never by established in their entirety. But if they, or any part of them, or even any parallel hypotheses were eventually confirmed, we would have an explanation of why the measured traits are statistically distributed among racial groups in the distinct patterns evident in the data I had examined. The theories provided testable hypotheses and consequently complied with two fundamental goals of any science: the search to provide causal explanations of phenomena, and the search to unify separate fields of thought. These powerful incentives pulled me forward.
I emphasized two caveats in my presentation before the AAAS. First, because there is enormous variability within each population and because the population distributions overlap, it is always problematic to generalize from a group average to any particular individual. Secondly, because genetic efforts are necessarily mediated by neurohormonal and psychosocial mechanisms, many opportunities exist for intervention and the alleviation of suffering.
My hypothesis so stunned AAAS organizers that they quickly called a press conference to publicly dissociate themselves from my remarks. At the press conference, the president of the AAAS, Dr. Walter Massey, vice-president for research at the University of Chicago, told reporters that my credentials as a psychologist were good and that scholars participating in the conference were free to draw any conclusions they choose. Massey affirmed that the AAAS would never consider muzzling any scholar because the free expression of views was the essence of academic discussion. He went on to say that I had made "quite a leap of faith from the data to the conclusions" and that he found the paper "personally disturbing" and its conclusions "highly suspect." The scene was eerily reminiscent of the closing sequence of the film Rosemary's Baby with the media setting up to take pictures of the newborn devil, cloven hoofs and slit eyes, ready to raise hell on earth. I was about to become an academic pariah.
By the time I returned from the conference to my home in London, Ontario, and my job as professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, the uproar was in full swing. "Canadian Professor Provokes Uproar With Racial Theories," proclaimed Canada's national newspaper, the venerable Globe and Mail. "Theory Racist: Prof Has Scholars Boiling," declared the influential Toronto Star. "UWO Professor Denies Study Was Racist," trumpeted the local London Free Press.
Newspapers took my views to hostile social activist groups and got their predictably hostile opinion. They said I should be fired for promoting hatred. The press then took this idea to the president of the university who upheld the principle of academic freedom. The ongoing conflict was serialized for weeks. Student activist groups soon entered the fray, demanding that I meet with them in a public forum.
TV coverage of my theories juxtaposed photos of me with footage of Nazi storm troops. Editing and voiceovers removed any mention of my qualification that the race differences I had identified were often quite small and could not be generalized to individuals and didn't mention that like any decent human being I abhor Nazi racial policies. Newspapers caricatured me as wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood or talking on the telephone to a delighted Adolf Hitler. The Toronto Star began a campaign to get me fired from my position, chastising my university and stating "This protection of a charlatan on grounds of academic freedom is preposterous." Later, the same paper linked me to the Holocaust saying, "[Thus] there emerged the perverted 'master race' psychology of the 20th century, and the horror of the Holocaust. Oddly, the discredited theories of eugenic racism still are heard, most recently from an academic at an Ontario university." I had no choice but to hire a prestigious law firm and issue notices under the Libel and Slander Act against the newspaper. This brought the media campaign against me to a halt.
Hate Crime Laws
In the U.S. there is a First Amendment to protect the right of every citizen to free speech and there is not much the government can do to silence unpopular ideas. In Canada and many Western European countries, however, there are laws against free speech, ostensibly enacted to inhibit "hate" and the spreading of "false news."
Two weeks after my AAAS presentation, the premier of Ontario denounced my theories. My work was "highly questionable and destructive" and "morally offensive to the way Ontario thinks," he said. It "destroys the kind of work we are trying to do, to bring together a society based on equality of opportunity." The premier told reporters he had telephoned the university president and found him in a dilemma about how to handle the case. The premier said that he understood and supported the concept of academic freedom, but in this particular case dismissal should occur "to send a signal" to society that such views are "highly offensive."
When the university failed to fire me, the premier asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether I had violated the federal Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46, Section 319, Paragraph 2, which specifies: "Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
The police questioned my colleagues and members of the administration and professors at other universities, demanded tapes of media interviews, and sent a questionnaire to my attorney to which I was obliged to reply in detail. (There's no Fifth Amendment in Canada either). After harassing me and dragging my name through the dirt for six months, the Attorney General of Ontario declined to prosectue me and dismissed my research as "loony, but not criminal."
This did not halt the legal action. Eighteen students, including seven Black students, lodged a formal complaint against me to the Ontario Human Rights Commission claiming that I had violated Sections, 1, 8, and 10 of the 1981 Ontario Human Rights Code guaranteeing equality of treatment to all citizens of the province. In particular, I was charged with "infecting the learning environment with academic racism." As remedy, the complainants requested that my employment at the university be terminated and that an order be made requiring the university to "examine its curriculum so as to eliminate academic racism."
I was outraged. A more flagrant attack on the right to freedom of expression was difficult to imagine in a supposedly free country. "Human rights" tribunals were becoming a menace - a direct threat to the very human rights and fundamental freedoms they were supposed to protect. The Ontario Human Rights Commission could no more change the truth about human races than could the Christian Inquistion about the solar system or the KGB about the genetics of wheat. I found it difficult to accept the increasingly obvious fact that in the post-Soviet world, an academic was freer to say what he believed about some things in Russia, than in Canada.
Four long years after the complaint was lodged, the Ontario Human Rights Commission abandoned its case against me claiming it could no longer find the complainants to testify.
Events at the University
In its relations with the outside world the university administration stood firmly for academic freedom. The president gave a press conference to state categorically that there would be no investigation of me, that I would not be suspended, and that I was free to pursue any line of research I chose.
Behind the scenes, however, I became the target of a witch hunt by some of the administrators. Dismayingly, my dean, a physical anthropologist, publicly declared that I had lost my scientific credibility and spearheaded an attack on me in the newspapers. She issued a series of preemptive statements making plain her negative opinion of me and my work. "What evidence is there for this ranked ordering of the evolution of the human races?" she wrote. "None." Claiming that her views represented only her academic opinion she emphasized that she was not speaking in any administrative capacity. Her letter was nonetheless widely interpreted in the media as a refutation by my "boss." Henceforth, in order to support me, a person would now have to go up against the dean in addition to prevailing opinion. Next, the chair of my department gave me an annual performance rating of "unsatisfactory" citing my "insensitivity." This was a remarkable turnaround because it occurred for the same year in which I had been made a Fellow of the prestigious John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. My previous twelve years of annual ratings had been "good" or "excellent." Indeed, my earlier non-controversial work had made me on of the most cited scholars in my university.
Because unsatisfactory ratings can lead to dismissal, even for a tenured professor like me, I contested the rating through various levels of grievance, wasting an enormous amount of time and emotional energy. The proceedings that followed were Kafkaesque, terrifying when they weren't simply funny. For example, the grievance procedures required that I first appeal the Chairman's negative assessment to the Dean. The Dean had already spoken out against me, so I asked the Dean to recuse herself from hearing the case. She refused. So I had to appear before her.
At my hearing, the Dean's folded arms and glowers of fury made her decision obvious, and six weeks later, she upheld the Department Chair's decision. In a seven-page letter justifying her decision, she cast aspersions at my "sensitivity," and my sense of "responsibility," and questioned whether ther were, in fact, "any" papers that had ever been published that had supported my perspective other than those I had written myself.
I decided on a more drastic defense. I wrote to colleagues around the world and received over 50 strong letters of support, many endorsing the evidence I had presented. When the Dean found out about this she went absolutely ballistic, on one occasion screaming and spitting at me in fury.
I eventually won my appeal against the Dean and the Chair and two separate grievance committeess chastised them for their actions against me. My annual performance ratings are back to receiving grades of "good" and "excellent."
Some radical and Black students mobilized and held rallies, even bringing in a member of the African National Congress to denounce me. In one demonstration, a mob of 40 people stormed through the psychology department, banging on walls and doors, bellowing slogans through bull horns, drawing swastikas on the walls, and writing on my door "Racist Pig Live Here."
The administration responded by barring me from the classroom and ordering me to lecture by videotape on the pretext that they could not protect me from the lawlessness of students. Again I launched formal grievances. After a term of enforced teaching by videotape, I won the right to resume teaching in person, though then I was required to run a gauntlet of demonstrators shouting protests and threats. Only after several forced cancellations of my classes did the administration warn the demonstrators that further action would lead to suspension and legal action. That brought the protests to a halt.
De Facto Censorship and the Corruption of Scholarship
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1973, I witnessed a physical assault on Hans Eysenck, who was studying the biological basis of intelligence and had recently published his book Race, Intelligence, and Education (1971). The slogan of that day was "Fascists Have No Right To Speak," and Eysenck became a target for attack. No legal charges were brought for the widely witnesses assault because another popular slogan of the 1960's , for those who approved the message but disapproved the tactic, was "There are no Enemies on the Left." Stories of harassment and intimidation could be told by many others who have had the temerity to research topics that touch on the genetic or distributional basis of race differences.
Today, many campus radicals from the 1960's are the tenured radicals of the 1990's. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960's mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as "fascists" and others deemed to be not politically correct.
In his book, Kindly Inquisitors, Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up "anti-harassment" rules prohibiting - and establishing punishments for - "speech or other expression" that is intended to "insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, hankicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin." (This is quoted from Stanford's policy, and is more or less typical.) One case at the University of Michigan became well known because it led a federal court to strike down the rule in question. A student claimed, in a classroom discussion, that he thought homosexuality was a disease treatable with therapy. He was formally disciplined by the university for violating the school's policy and victimizing people on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Canada and Western Europe, governments can and do prohibit speech on topics they consider obnoxious. In Denmark, a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper calling national domestic partner laws "ungodly" and homosexuality "the ugliest kind of adultery." She and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosectution. In Great Britain, the Race Relations Act forbids speech that expresses racial hatred, "not only when it is likely to lead to violence, but generally, on the grounds that members of the minority races should be protected from racial insults." In some parts of the world you can be jailed, exiled, or even executed for expressing forbidden opinions.
Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called 'one-party science.' For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences.
The high-placed pervasiveness of the egalitarian orthodoxy is scary. Even more frightening than what happened to me is the experience of Christopher Brand, professor of psychology at Edinburgh University. On February 29, 1996, Brand's book on intelligence, The g Factor, was published in the United Kingdom by the British subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On April 14, newspaper reports of interviews with him began to appear saying that he thought black people had a lower IQ than did whites and that these were probably partly genetic. On April 17, Wiley's company in New York denounced Brand's views as "repellent" and withdrew the book from bookstores. A blizzard of "refutations" of Brand appeared in the U.K. media under outraged headlines. Protests from members of Parliament, student boycotts of his lectures, and calls for his resignation by faculty at the University of Edinburgh all predictably ensued. Brand's refusal to be silenced and his defense of free speech led him to be fired (on August 8, 1997) for bringing his university into disrepute. There but for the grace God, go I.
In 1995, my monograph Race, Evolution, and Behavior was published by Transaction Publishers. Subsequently, the book was translated into Japanese (1996) and released as a softcover edition (1997) with an Afterword updating the science since the hardback went to press.
The book garnered a lead review in the New York Times Book Review (October 16, 1994) where Malcolm Browne, the Times science writer, discussed it along with Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve and Seymour Itzkoff's The Decline of Intelligence in America. Browne concluded his analysis with the statement that "the government or society that persists in sweeping this topic under the rug will do so at its peril." Dozens of other journals, including the National Review, Nature,andThe Nation, also reviewed it.
Its publication by an important academic press touched off a new round of hysteria. A lurid article screaming "Professors of HATE" (in five-inch letters!) appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (October 20, 1994). Taking up the entire next page was a photograph of my face, hideously darkened, twisted into a ghoulish image, and superimposed on a Gothic university tower. In another long propaganda piece entitled "The Mentality Bunker" which appeared in Gentleman's Quarterly (November 1994), I was misrepresented as an outmoded eugenicist and pseudoscientific racist. A photograph of me was published in brown tint reminiscent of vintage photos from the Hitler era.
Incredibly, Canada Customs seized and witheld copies of one shipment of the book for nine months while they tried to decide whether to condemn the book as "hate literature" and ban it from entering Canada. The fact that an academic book was even the subject of an investigation stunned my publisher: "I've never heard of such a thing," said Mary Curtis, Chairman of the Board of Transaction. "This is not supposed to happen in Canada. The last time the company had trouble shipping scholarly works was in the mid-1980's, when some books shipped to the Moscow Fair didn't make it."
Michel Cléroux, a spokesman for Canada Customs, said Customs were just following orders by investigating possible hate propaganda. A departmental policy prohibiting hate propaganda includes this definition: "Goods alleging that an identifiable group is racially inferior and/or weakens other segments of society to the detriment of society as a whole." After an "investigation" lasting nine months, Canada Customs relented.
Harassment continued at another meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS routinely allows the militantly disruptive International Committee Against Racism (INCAR) and Progressive Labor Party (PLP) to have official "Exhibitor" status, along with a booth, at its annual meeting. At the February 1996 meeting in Baltimore, INCAR and PLP festooned their booth with posters of Karl Marx and signs taking credit for interfering with the University of Maryland conference on "Genes and Crime" in September 1995.
At the AAAS meeting, INCAR targeted my poster presenting a review of the literature on brain size and cognitive ability. When INCAR encountered me the day before the poster presentation, they yelled so many death threats that the AAAS called the Baltimore police, who dispatched an armed officer to stand by the presentation. Despite the guard, INCAR continued to utter threats. One demonstrator took photographs of me saying they were for a "Wanted: Dead or Alive" poster. "You won't be living much longer," he said. Incredibly, instead of cancelling the Exhibitor Status of organizations that threaten violencee, the program director of the AAAS's annual meeting said, in an interview published in The Scientist (March 4, 1996), that AAAS would tighten up the screening process to make it more difficult for presentations like mine to get on the program!
As Charles Murray has observed in the aftermath to The Bell Curve, social science is corrupt on the topic of race. Yet, the genetic hypothesis for the pervasiveness of the three-way racial pattern across so many traits, and which calls into question simple explanations based only on social factors like discrimination and poverty, needs to be discussed.
In his commencement address to the graduating class of 1997 at the University of California (San Diego), U.S. President Bill Clinton called for a new dialogue on race and for "deepening our understanding of human nature and human differences." But apparently there are some aspects of human nature and human differences he'd rather leave unexplored.
I've learned a great deal since that day in 1989 when I stood before that meeting of scientists and presented a summary of my research, thereby making myself the target of harassment by the politically correct and the object of intimidation by the government of Canada. Despite the viscious campaign against investigation of the possible genetic basis of group differences, my interest never wavered. Work on other topics seemed shallow by comparison. Spurred by attacks and aided by colleagues, I have sought out more definitive tests of the genetic hypothesis and continue to publish my research.
I've also learned how important freedom of inquiry is to science, which must always remain to pursue truth without regard for where that pursuit leads. I've learned to treasure such remnants of freedom of speech as I enjoy as a citizen of Canada, and remain more committed than ever to the search for truth. As Benjamin Franklin observed more than two centuries ago, "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech."
|March 5th, 2008||#17|
Richard Warman's attempt to block U.S. websites
By Ezra Levant on March 4, 2008 8:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (38) | Trackback
I've written about how Richard Warman, the former Canadian Human Rights Commission staffer who is now the CHRC's biggest customer for thought crime complaints, has tried to censor Canadian libraries in British Columbia and Ontario.
But the largest libraries in the world now, of course, are online. And defamation suits and human rights complaints -- Warman's preferred tools of censorship -- don't work as well if the libraries and other websites in question are based in the United States. Their robust First Amendment means that U.S. defamation law is not an effective censorship tool, and that country does not -- yet, at least -- have anything as pernicious as Canada's various thought crimes laws.
Well, if a Canadian can't censor U.S. websites, can he get Internet companies here in Canada to block those U.S. sites from Canadian Internet users, like Communist China does with politically incorrect sites? That's exactly what Warman sought to do in an application to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
I'm not an expert in telecommunications law, but from what I gather, Canada's big Internet companies like Rogers and Bell are governed by the Telecommunications Act (apparently little ISP's aren't). Section 36 of that Act specifically bans communication companies from interfering with content without government approval -- and that includes censoring websites:
Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.
Well, that's what Warman -- and the censors at the Canadian Jewish Congress -- asked the Commission to do. In the written application to the CRTC filed by his lawyers, Warman asks not only for the CRTC's "permission" under section 36 to ban two particular U.S. websites, but he also asks for:
Directions on procedure... whereby Canadian carriers and other interested parties can present their views as to whether the blocking of these URLs should be made a final order of the Commission and whether the blocking of these websites should be mandatory for all Canadian ISPs.
Warman didn't just want to crack open the law forbidding the big telecom companies from tampering or censoring content. He also wanted the CRTC to set up a procedure where "interested parties" like him could get the big carriers to block websites -- and force the little ISPs to do so, too.
There are so many appalling aspects to this application, it's hard to know where to start. The first is that Warman made his application ex parte -- that means without notice to anyone else with skin in the game. The owner of the two U.S. websites being being discussed wasn't there to make his case; no Canadian Internet companies were there, neither big nor small; no one else with a stake in communications was invited at all. Of course, ordinary Canadians who surf the Internet weren't invited, either, to say whether or not they wanted Warman and the CJC to decide for them where they could or could not surf. It was almost as cosy as a former CHRC employee filing a complaint with his former colleagues at the CHRC.
The second worrisome thing is that Warman and the CJC sought to criminalize websites without the trouble of a criminal trial. Here's the affidavit filed by the CJC's Bernie Farber; in paragraph 5 he says that in his "expert" opinion, the U.S. websites in question likely violate sections of Canada's Criminal Code. But Farber is not a policeman or a prosecutor; he doesn't work as an officer of the law, he works as an officer of a special interest lobby group. And even if he was a policeman, a policeman's view is just one side of the story. Here in Canada we don't convict someone of a crime ex parte; we invite the accused to hear the case against him; we allow the accused to present a defence; and we ask well-trained criminal judges to make those weighty decisions, not CRTC bureaucrats whose expertise is telephone red tape.
Very few Canadians knew about this outrageous application -- an attempt to turn the CRTC itself into a replica of the CHRC, but even more unfair. At least the CHRC invites respondents to make their case. (The respondents never win; the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate for section 13 idea crimes. But at least they pretend.) There would be no pretending at the CRTC, because any website, anywhere around the world, would be summarily tried, here in Canada. In almost every conceivable case, it would be a thin-skinned Canadian complainer's word against someone in a foreign country who would be absent. Just imagine the abuses that would happen in such a system. Canada would truly become like China, a gross violator of "netiquette", a censor en masse, treating our citizens like sheep.
To their everlasting credit, the CRTC threw out the application, for several of the very reasons I've outlined above:
...given the unprecedented nature of the relief sought in the Application and the serious and fundamental issues it raises, as well as the fact that the specific approval is being sought in favour of Canadian carriers without notice to such carriers, it would be inappropriate to consider granting the interim relief sought in the Application on an ex parte basis, and in particular without affording Canadian carriers and all other interested parties the opportunity to comment. Such a public process would allow for consideration of the broader policy and legal issues regarding the scope, and appropriate use, of the Commission's powers pursuant to section 36 of the Act.
I'm interested in this subject because I'm interested in freedom, and I am only recently discovering the relentless nature of those who would erode or limit our freedoms here in Canada, especially in the name of phoney "human rights", such as the human right not to be offended.
But I'm also interested in this subject because, a week or so ago, Richard Warman, the applicant in this censorship gambit and the plaintiff in the library-censoring defamation suits, filed notice of a threatened defamation suit against me, too. And one of the recurring complaints in that notice was that I defamed him by calling him a censor.
I know, it's absurd. But then so much of this story is absurd.
If you want to help me fight Warman's threatened defamation lawsuit -- or help me in my other legal battle, the Alberta Human Rights Commission's two-year prosecution of me for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed -- I'd be grateful. I promise to keep fighting until the fight is won.
If you want to be part of the fight, too, please click on the PayPal button. Thank you very much.
"This organization is not a registered non-profit organization. Donations to this organization are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes."
|March 5th, 2008||#18|
March 25th should be interesting
By Ezra Levant on March 4, 2008 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (39) | Trackback
Note: See UPDATES 1 and 2 below
If I'm reading this order correctly, March 25th may become known as Black Tuesday at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
That's when Marc Lemire -- one of the few Canadians who has had the energy and legal resources to fight back against the CHRC's section 13 thought crimes steamroller -- will be allowed to cross examine commission staff about their "undercover" activities on the Internet. Judging by what Lemire has uncovered so far -- such as an Edmonton Police "hate crimes" officer posting anti-Semitic and anti-Aboriginal bigotry on the Internet -- it's sure to be a blockbuster.
(It's deeply disturbing that "hate crimes" police -- I'm not talking about human rights keystone cops now, but real police officers -- publish such bigotry on the taxpayers' dime, and all in the name of keeping the peace. One must ask: at what point is the "fake" hatred generated by the police a larger problem than the "real" hatred that exists already on society's fringes? And, really, is there any moral difference between the two, other than the police claim they don't really mean it? At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?)
Remember that these are the same "anti-hate" activists -- police, human rights activists, and even CSIS agents -- who paid a government agent to set up the Heritage Front, arguably Canada's leading neo-Nazi movement twenty years ago. The fact that these same government agents then "infiltrated" the nascent Reform Party, to the great embarrassment of Preston Manning, shows that these "anti-hate" campaigns have long been torqued into a partisan political weapon.
The CHRC had vigorously opposed the coming interrogation of their staff, and it's easy to see why. Dean Steacy, one of the staff who will be compelled to answer questions on March 25th, has previously admitted to creating Internet pseudonyms to infiltrate websites the commission was hunting (something Richard Warman has admitted to doing as well after, uh, first not admitting to it). But instead of preparing some hermetically-sealed, written answers to Lemire's questions, as Steacy has been able to do in the past, he must now take the stand and answer questions live, under oath, from Lemire's lawyer.
It will be fascinating to watch. Remember, Steacy was the commission staffer who once exclaimed that freedom of speech -- which just happens to be section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights -- "is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." Watching Lemire's lawyer cross-examine him might be worth flying all the way to Ottawa.
Another CHRC staffer, Hannya Rizk, will be ordered to take the stand, too. It will be interesting, if only to see why the CHRC tried so hard to deny Lemire the right to ask them questions about their investigative tactics. Surely one of the hallmarks of a limited, responsible government, where the police and other instruments of state power are accountable to civilian oversight, is transparency. If the CHRC wants to hide its tactics, isn't that in itself a sign that something is awfully wrong? The tactics and techniques of real police officers are subject to scrutiny by the public all the time -- from tasers to photo radar to search warrants to closed circuit TV cameras to wire taps. It's healthy -- and it reminds police that they serve the people, and not the other way around. Why did the CHRC try so hard to keep its tactics immune from scrutiny?
Besides grilling Steacy and Rizk, my reading of the order is that Lemire can now subpoena Internet records from Bell that would "remember" any details that Steacy or Rikz might "forget". That's another win, too.
But the CHRC isn't the only organization that's sure to be embarrassed on March 25th. If I understand the order, it will permit Lemire to enter as exhibits correspondence between the Canadian Jewish Congress and the CHRC, in which the CJC discussed methods by which Internet companies could block access to Internet websites -- that is, to censor them -- without even bothering to go through the process of a CHRC hearing.
This, I've got to see. The CHRC has a 100% conviction rate under its section 13 thought crimes section; people dragged before the commission have to pay for their own lawyers, and often are ordered to pay fines to the commission and to the person who brought the complaint to the commission's attention (like Richard Warman has done so frequently). Apparently that absurd, one-sided procedure is still too much hassle for the CJC. It will be fascinating to see the censorship plans cooked up between the CJC and the CHRC that involve short-circuiting the kangaroo court, and going straight to the censorship.
But I think the most dramatic moment of all will come when commission staffer Dean Steacy is asked about his undercover activities targetting Free Dominion, a leading conservative political "chat" website. Steacy's fake Internet name, Jadewarr, was used to sign up on Free Dominion just two weeks before a "hateful" post was made there, that later formed the basis of a CHRC complaint against the site.
Did Dean Steacy himself manufacture that "evidence" that was then used as the basis of a complaint against Free Dominion? Why was the CHRC targetting a mainstream conservative chat site, the same way it had targetted overtly racist sites in the past? Who at the CHRC had made the determination that taxpayers' dollars and bureaucrats' time should be used to infiltrate a conservative political forum?
We might just get an answer to these questions on March 25th. If so, it will be a rare glimpse into the secretive, unaccountable world of human rights commissions -- and therefore, an important step towards educating the public, and the politicians, about the aching need to rein in these commissions and cut them down.
UPDATE 1: Some commenters and bloggers are surprised that I would support Marc Lemire, because he runs websites that could fairly be called white supremacist. The answer is pretty simple: I don't. I just believe that a government that censors an offensive website is more offensive -- and dangerous -- than any website itself. And, as the March 25th hearings will likely show, in its zeal to "get" the Marc Lemires of this world, the government has become what they claim they abhor: sneaky, anonymous Internet lurkers, posting bigoted comments. Far more troubling than those government agents' own petty epithets, though, is the human rights commissions' perversion of our legal system, and their erosion of our freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Trying to outlaw hate doesn't work; hate is an emotion that's rooted in a real or imagined grievance; if it were possible to simply legislate such feelings away, we'd have passed the Love Each Other Act a long time ago. The answer is to leave the haters alone or, if you must, engage them to try to ameliorate their feelings of grievance, or prove to them that their grievance is unfounded. That last one is the Ken McVey approach to fighting -- that is, fighting the battle of ideas using words, not police and censors. But it takes a lot more work and patience than just criminalizing your opponents.
Having the government tape someone's mouth shut won't make his feelings go away -- it will probably make him hate even more, and it will confirm all of his suspicions, conspiracy theories and other rationales for hatred. I truly believe that the "war on hate" that the Canadian Jewish Congress and others have waged has had a symbiotic relationship with the haters -- they both feed off each other. If the government and officious do-gooders like the CJC simply ignored harmless haters (and focused on actual crimes, not thought crimes), the problem would atrophy. David Ahenakew is a prime example of this.
My "support" for Lemire is my support for his fight against the human rights commissions, which are procedurally and substantively unCanadian. I suppose that's one of the differences between Warren Kinsella and me: I don't rejoice when my political opponents are dealt with tyrannically by my government. I think it's unfair and, at best, amoral. But I also realize that the precedents set when the state prosecutes the Lemires of the world are then used when the state prosecutes the Levants and the Steyns of the world.
And if they ever go after the Kinsellas of the world. So far, Canada's left has been exempted from these human rights complaints. That's partly because the commissions themselves are stacked with lefty, politically correct appointees who would find a creative way to dismiss a complaint filed by a conservative or a Christian. (I have probably read 50 tribunal rulings, and the only one in which a complainant was a Christian was dismissed. A dairy farmer in Alberta didn't want his milk to be picked up on Sunday, but the commission told him he should have thought of that before becoming a farmer.) But I think the exemption for the left is mainly because conservatives and Christians don't tend to run to the nanny state to censor their opponents. Conservatives are so used to being in the minority that we've learned to debate, and to take rough and tumble insults without complaining quite as much, at least to the government.
But should that ever change -- should conservatives start filing the same sort of nuisance complaints at human rights commissions as do liberals and Islamic fascists -- I bet it wouldn't be too long before the left started to worry about due process and constitutional freedoms. That's why lefty groups like PEN Canada have stood with Steyn and me -- not because they agree with us, but because they see how it's Lemire's white supremacism yesterday, my conservatism today, and Kinsella's pain-in-the-neckism tomorrow. Any fellow who makes his living offending his rivals should realize that when Lemire's right to be offensive in danger, Kinsella's is, too.
A lawyer like Kinsella knows that you don't have to be "pro-murderer" to support the criminal law concepts of the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc., even if they -- because they -- benefit accused murderers. We support those rules because that's our own moral standard for justice. I support Lemire's fight against the human rights commissions not because I support his website -- I've actually never visited it, and I don't really care to. I support his fight because it's my fight too.
UPDATE 2: Marc Lemire responds to Kinsella's and commenters' criticisms of him with his own comment (I assume it's him, and not a CHRC staffer posing as him):
With all the controversy about my alleged beliefs, I figured its time to add my $0.02. I am moving up the ladder daily. A few years ago I was a "nobody", now according to Wornout Kinsella, I run one of the largest white supremacist website ON THE PLANET! (Sadly the poor CHRC, who read every single thing I wrote since 2002, was unable to find a SINGLE post I wrote that was ?bad?)Amazingly how the more I expose what the CHRC is really up to the bigger a "nazi" I become. After smoking the CHRC on March 25, 2008, I may well become the secret inspiration behind MEIN KAMPF, and the driving force behind the entire Nazi regime.For the blog morons who have never heard of sarcasm? let me be clear: I have never been or will ever be a Nazi or supporter of Adolf Hitler. In fact look at my website. You know, the largest white supremacist one on the planet, and see if you can spot what Kinsella is talking about. (For those who don?t see the dripping hate, gas chambers, nooses and swastikas on my site? you must BE A NAZI SYMPATHIZER! Or perhaps, like Wornout, you might need to be knee-high?)Funny how people like Richard Warman go around signing his internet posting on Stormfront.org with Heil Hitler (which Warman admitted to doing under oath?) ... and he is the "anti-racist" YET, I have never spoken a single word in support of Hitler, no swastikas on my website? Yet, I am the "nazi".As George Orwell called it, "NewSpeak" is alive and well. Now "Anti-Racist" has become, someone posing as a woman on message boards, and posting vile hate for the purpose and intent of "stopping online hate". Seems sorta backwards to me.. but hey, I am just a vile Neo-Nazi, fascist, white supremacist, hater, Muslimphobic, ShariaHater, anti-semite, who knows nothing better. (did I mention Nazi?)With top "anti-racists" and hate crime unit police officers filling up message board from here to kingdom-come with hate messages, I feel somewhat left out. Being Canada's top nazi, hater and anti-Semite, I feel somewhat cheated. There is no one left out there, I can call a "n*gger" and "c*nt".From now on, I am going to assume fake names online like LUCY (oh wait thats already taken...) ok.. hmmm... ok... JENNIFER, then. And I will post things like: "THIRD-WORLD IMMIGRANTS WHO COLLECT WELFARE, RIP OFF OUR SYSTEM AND LIE TO GET INTO THE COUNTRY ARE .. A-OK"Christ this is CanaDUH, I might be able to get a government job pulling in close to $100k with those sort of comments!Time to change professions. Being a computer expert (with forensics specialization) certified by Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Citrix, and Novell, just doesn't cut it anymore, I need to get into the "Anti-Racism" racket.... My fingers are crossed the CJC will be hiring soon, since their current poster boy might not occupy that spot for too much longer.
|March 6th, 2008||#19|
BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
PURSUANT TO PART VII OF THE
CRTC TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULES OF PROCEDURE
An ex parte application for interim approval under section 36 of the Telecommunications Act to permit Canadian carriers to block the content of certain hate websites and additional follow-up relief
22 August 2006
1.1 In this ex parte application filed pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications rules of Procedure, Richard Warman (the “Applicant”) seeks the following relief:
(a) Interim Commission approval under section 36 of the Telecommunications Act to allow Canadian carriers to block the content of the following two website URLs (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Hate Sites”):
(b) Directions on procedure concerning the initiation of a show cause proceeding or other public proceeding whereby Canadian carriers and other interested parties can present their views as to whether the blocking of these URLs should be made a final order of the Commission and whether the blocking of these websites should be mandatory for all Canadian ISPs.
1.2 Richard Warman is a Canadian human rights lawyer who has been at the forefront of the battle against the dissemination of hate over the internet. He has been singled out by the authors of the Subject Hate Sites which advocate for his murder and go so far as to provide his home address.
1.3 The Subject Hate Sites are not hosted in Canada and therefore the Applicant does not have access to Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) self-governing policies that knock down websites that contain potentially illegal content, or content that contravenes the ISP's acceptable use policy. What is needed now is for those ISPs to block access to the site to protect the Applicant and the Canadian community at large from these Subject Hate Sites.
1.4 Unfortunately most of the large Canadian ISPs cannot act to block these Subject Hate Sites without the relief requested in paragraph 1.1(a) above because of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act which states:
[Content of messages]
36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.
1.5 Due to the need to prevent the ever increasing possibility of personal harm to the Applicant and the community at large as a result of the Subject Hate Sites, the relief requested has been divided into two parts. First, the Applicant is seeking the Commission’s consent, on an interim and ex parte basis, to the blocking of the Subject Hate Sites by those carriers willing and technically able to do so. This interim relief is based on strong prima facie evidence set out herein that these sites violate the Criminal Code. The Applicant also believes that there is a likelihood that one or more larger ISPs are willing to block access to these sites once Commission consent is obtained thus ensuring the relief requested can result in some positive relief.
1.6 Directions on a second follow-up proceeding are requested where Canadian ISPs and any interested parties can provide submissions on whether the relief requested should be made final and whether or not the Commission’s approval to block the Subject Hate Sites should be mandatory.
2.0 The Subject Hate Sites Constitute Hate Offences Under the Canadian Criminal Code
2.1 "Hate" is a crime under Canada’s Criminal Code. As demonstrated on the face of the two Subject Hate Sites, these websites violate sections 318 and 319(2) of the Criminal Code and possibly other sections as well. Excerpts from the Subject Hate Sites have been reproduced in Appendix 1 to this application for easy reference. An affidavit by Bernie Farber, a court qualified expert on hate crimes has also provided an affidavit to assist the Commission and is included at Appendix 2.
2.2 Section 318: “Advocating Genocide” is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2.3 Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code applies to the public distribution of hate propaganda. This section states that "everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of” an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2.4 The vitriolic language employed by Mr. White against Jews in general and Richard Warman in particular are a cause for deep concern and require a clear and immediate response.
3.0 The Subject Hate Sites Clearly Threatens Richard Warman
3.1 As set out in the affidavit of Richard Warman attached as Appendix 3, the Subject Hate Sites, in posting Richard Warman’s home address along with repeated exhortations that Richard Warman (and all Jews) should be killed have caused him to fear for his personal safety. This is particularly the case given the long and notorious history of violence within the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements.
3.2 Further, the Subject Hate Sites are a gross invasion of Richard Warman’s privacy and defamatory in the extreme in that they impute false beliefs to him about the seriousness of sexual assault. This constitutes a vicious attack on his reputation not just as an individual, but also as a member of the bar.
3.3 Timely consent to the blocking of the Subject Hate Sites by Canadian carriers will assist in protecting Richard Warman from further harm caused by these websites.
4.0 Relief Requested
4.1 The Applicant seeks the following relief:
a) Interim Commission approval under section 36 of the Telecommunications Act to allow Canadian carriers to block the content of the following two website URLs:
b) Directions on procedure concerning the initiation of a show cause proceeding or other public proceeding whereby Canadian carriers and other interested parties can present their views as to whether the blocking of these URLs should be made a final order of the Commission and whether the blocking of these websites should be mandatory for all Canadian ISPs.
All of which is respectfully submitted this 22th day of August, 2006.
PAPAZIAN HEISEY MYERS
This ex parte application is made by Mr. J. Edward Antecol, Partner, PAPAZIAN HEISEY MYERS, Suite 510, 121 King St. W., P.O. Box 105, Toronto, ON, M5H 3T9 on behalf of Richard Warman.
* * * END OF DOCUMENT * * *
|March 7th, 2008||#20|
[Universities in Canada are now trying to outlaw specific phrases, I kid you not. Once you abandon Aryan concept of free speech for the jewish concept of hate speech, you open a real can of worms. Thought police are required at every corner.]
Students protest for free speech
McMaster under attack for banning phrase ‘Israeli apartheid’
[Note the way reporter frames it: the censors are the victims.]
by Valerie Di Mascio
McMaster University was the scene of a rowdy rally Feb. 29, as students from Ontario universities raised their voices to support the freedom of speech they claim was infringed on after the school’s student union (MSU) and the school’s administration allegedly banned the use of the phrase “Israeli apartheid.”
The decision to ban the phrase was a request by the McMaster administration and imposed by the student union, according to Nora Loreta, president of the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU).
According to York University’s newspaper, The Excalibur, on Feb. 8, McMaster’s Human Rights and Equity Services and MSU sent an e-mail to McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice notifying the group of the decision to ban the phrase “Israeli apartheid.”
“The university has taken the position that literature which refers to Israeli apartheid and activities promoted under the banner Israeli Apartheid Week are [...] in violation of the university’s efforts to ensure that all people will be treated with dignity and tolerance,” said the e-mail.
But the McMaster administration is now denying the allegations, stating that such a ban was never adopted by the university.
“Unfortunately a great deal of misinformation has circulated. We will not and have not taken any actions to abridge that freedom [of speech],” said McMaster provost Ilene Busch-Vishniac.
Furthermore, in a Feb. 29 written statement, McMaster president Peter George denied the ban.
“Over the past few weeks [...] the University community has dealt with questions surrounding Israeli Apartheid Week prompted by incorrect information that the university has banned the use of the term Israeli Apartheid on campus,” he wrote. “Let me be categorically clear. The term has not been banned. McMaster’s commitment to freedom of speech has not been compromised.”
Ryan Moran, MSU president, told The Excalibur the decision to ban the phrase was specific to an Israeli Apartheid Week banner that contained “violent imagery.”
On Feb. 26 the RSU took a position against the ban put in place at McMaster University, said Loreta.
“On behalf of the Ryerson students’ union, we took a position at our board denouncing the ban on the phrase ‘Israeli Apartheid,’ she said. She added that it is outrageous for the administration to call an outright ban on a phrase.
“The question of whether or not Israeli is an apartheid state should be debated. You know, everyone has their own position on that, but the idea that the university and the students’ union can impose a ban using two words together is outrageous and that’s a total attack on students’ ability to organize and students’ ability to call into question human rights abuses internationally.”
Loreta said Islamophobia has become quite alarming over the past couple of years at McMaster, and that there has been a number of extremely serious incidents that have occurred there.
“For example [...] I believe one faculty member [...] wore a hijab to support Muslim sisters who do wear hijabs and her door was defaced,” she said.
In reaction to the ban, student unions at Ryerson University, York University and the University of Toronto organized bus rides to McMaster Feb. 29 for students wanting to take part in a public forum and rally to protest the decision.